Message-Id: <199607011443.JAA11267@sierra.zyzzyva.com>
To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: Patches 
In-reply-to: p.richards's message of Mon, 01 Jul 1996 15:02:20 +0100.
         <199607011402.PAA12680@cadair.elsevier.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 1996 09:43:12 -0500
From: Randy Terbush <randy@zyzzyva.com>
Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

> Jim Jagielski writes:
>  > As a general trouble maker, let me see if I have this right.
>  > 
>  >    Patch A: Changes things like HAS_GMTOFF to HAVE_GMTOFF and is
>  >     derided loud and long as being too much too late. Patch
>  >     removed.
>  > 
>  >    Patch B: Involves some heavy-duty changes to mod_cern_meta.c
>  >     as well as a semi-substantial change to the way the
>  >     module works (from per-server to per-directory). It is
>  >     added "much" later that Patch A. The resultant outcry?
>  >     One very nice message stating "isn't this kinda big?"
>  >     Patch remains.
>  > 
>  > 
>  > Is something wrong here?
> 
> Fair point in my opinion. Are we actually in code freeze now? This last
> patch went in days before a release is supposed to be cut, exactly how
> much testing is it going to get?


At risk of getting the greased pole.....

The point that both I and Jim raised when this issue last appeared was
the undoubtedly "longer shelf life" that 1.1 will likely see. No one
commented at all about this point which I think is valid.

Why can't we branch the CVS tree and get started with 1.2?
Wasn't this the advantage of setting up CVS?

I think that we are still seeing valid changes and cleanup patches
coming in like Andy and Jim's and would like to see them go into
the 1.1 release. By branching and waiting for things to die down
a bit on 1.1, we stand a much better chance of not repeating the
1.0 release scenario. The reason the 1.0 scenario happened was that
we got in a big toot to shove it out the door.